Traffic control signals have been used since the advent of motorized vehicles. A common use of traffic control signals relates to directing traffic flow patterns in construction or work zones, at blocked or partially blocked roadways, at scenes of vehicle emergencies and accidents and the like. The most common practice utilized is for a worker to stand on or near a roadway to manually control traffic patterns by the use of signs. Common practice includes the use of a two-sided paddle sign, one side displaying STOP and second sign displaying SLOW, where the worker alternates the side of the sign displayed to oncoming traffic to advise motorists to either decrease their speed or to come to a full stop.
In practice, it is common for two workers to be present and spaced apart to direct traffic traveling in opposing directions, for example on a two lane roadway. For example, where one lane of a two lane road is closed, a worker at each end of the second of closed roadway may alternate slowing and stopping vehicles so that traffic traveling in both directions alternate use of the open or available traffic lane.
Over the years, numerous efforts have been made to improve traffic signaling and the safety of traffic workers. Traffic control workers have an incredibly dangerous job and are often struck by vehicles who fail to heed the warnings or signs the worker is presenting. In fact, traffic control workers have one of the most dangerous public safety jobs with a resultant number of injuries and fatalities on an annual basis exceeding the total number of injuries and fatalities of policemen and firefighters combined.
Efforts to increase the safety for traffic control workers includes the utilization of lighted and flashing signage, bright and fluorescent colored clothing and hard hats, the use of temporary blockades or physical barriers, and working traffic from control vehicles, sometimes known in the industry as “lead cars.” Despite these efforts, numerous traffic control workers are injured and killed every year.
These problems have been addressed many times in earlier patents and there are several references that discuss, disclose and claim remotely controlled traffic control systems. These include U.S. Pat. No. 7,902,998 to Wheaton, U.S. Pat. No. 3,867,718 to Moe, U.S. Pat. No. 2,829,362 to Terrill, U.S. Pat. No. 6,052,067 to Nuxoll, U.S. Pat. No. 6,448,905 to Jones and U.S. Pat. No. 5,959,554 to Armstrong. None of these devices, however, are available in the marketplace nor, based upon research, have ever been readily available in the marketplace.
Several drawbacks exist with the remote control traffic control devices referenced above. First, traffic control devices that are set on timers or are otherwise automatically or computer controlled to direct traffic are inefficient and undesirable in most situations because of the unpredictability of motorists. If, for example a motorist fails to stop even though a traffic sign displays a STOP signal, a traffic accident, or impact with workers, is likely. It is beneficial and important for humans to control traffic signals in the circumstances described so that a reactionary decision can be made responsive to the actions of motorists. Accordingly, it is important for human control to be in place rather than relying upon any type of automated traffic control device.
Second, many of the devices disclosed are not durable enough for sustained or long-term use. It is important for all the components of a device to be housed from the weather and protected, as much as possible, from contact from passing vehicles.
Third, a remote controlled traffic signal must be brightly colored and highly visible so that motorists are quickly aware that attention is necessary when they first sight the device. Next, the device must be easy to operate, have as few moving parts as possible and have a high level of dependability for long-term and sustained operation.
Finally, the device must be safe for use, not only by the traffic control personnel but also by passing motorists. Not only do motorists strike traffic control personnel but they are prone to striking signs, signaling devices, barricades and the like. Accordingly, for this device to be useful in the workplace, it must meet or exceed established crash tests and impact standards.
None of the devices disclosed in the referenced patents meet all of these criteria.